It's ironic that most western socialists are terminally online, when most online content is funded by advertisement, something which wouldn't exist in socialism because the state owns everything and isn't in competition with the private sector

>Western socialist
>Western communist
Useful idiots of the CCP
And thus the zionist Jews

>>511040649
People who support enslaving Muslims in cotton plantations for the corporate profits of American fashion brands.

If it's necessary, for example libraries, health information, educational videos, etc the state would fund it
In the UK for example, the BBC is funded by license fees and doesn't have ads
I use an adblocker as well

>>511041146
The TV tax is a byzantine system where they just try to collect by surveiling and terrorizing citizens to compliance so they can fund demoralizing gaslighting traitorous brand of far leftie propaganda
The BBC is a catastrophe

>>511041467
The BBC is capitalist propaganda but it's still entertaining and used to provide high quality entertainment for example All Creatures Great and Small the 1978 series, Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy (literal capitalist propaganda), Yes Minister, I Claudius, Black Adder, Red Dwarf, etc

>>511041146
>BBC
If you look at the money, this a scheme that employs middle class people to take much money from the poor (fixed amount for everybody, there are more poor than rich) and pays rich famous anchor people
In the name of equality of course
On a macro level, whenever wherever you have a ministry of 'culture', the best scenario is essentially taking money from football fans to fund opera houses, who does this enrich and who does this impoverish?

GOD i hate lefties

>>511041627
You did a good job proving his point about far leftie propaganda lol

>>511041709
Art is incredibly important to fund
Yes, the tv license is regressive but it's kind of an artifact of its time and a British institution at this point
The point is that things do not need to be funded through advertisements, there are other alternatives available
>>511041771
None of the shows I posted are far left propaganda and you're too far gone if you believe that
Touch grass
The BBC at most has had a centre-left view but usually it's centre-right

>>511041925
Not the shows themselves, but how much of a far-leftist you yourself are
Ironically it's you who needs to touch grass right now

>>511041997
Oh well I'm a communist yeah but the idea that that somehow invalidates my basic argument that things don't need to be funded through advertisement is ridiculous
I guess the BBC did indoctrinate me into believing that through its very existence lmao
Project Gutenberg and Wikipedia get funded through donations
Wikipedia has wiktionary and wikisource as well which are both great, wiktionary has many free dictionaries available and wikisource has many public domain texts especially in French

>>511041925
Im not here to tell you advertisers are good people, im here to tell you politicians and the public sector are worse because no one can just opt out and say 'fuck it' and go outside the system.
I like the idea of state funded education for lower ages, but under the state they are all unionized and striking and essentially keep surprising thd parents with strikes etc, holding the kids hostage for politics. always crying and demanding more, don't give a damn about the kids (israel). I'd rather just have vauchers and have parents have the power to decide (and alocate funds) freely. They SHOULD be working for they public but they rarely are

You actually have to reconstruct the market (capitalism, competition etc) inside the state operation for shit to actually work

>>511042220
OP says *most* online content is funded by advertisement, which is true and nothing you've said invalidates it
You've only shown examples of heavily politically biased institutions, something which a socialist government would also do, produce propaganda
You could've instead brought up crowdsourcing, but we all know communists hate the idea of people helping each other without the intervention of the state so it didn't even cross your minds, but that again in miniscule compared to things funded by advertisement

The most dangerous spaces are the public ones
The park at night, the allies, the public transportation, why is that?
How come a pub full of drunk people is safer than the buss or a School in some areas? Because its private, the owner has full responsibility and he hires some goon to make damn sure it's safe and selective. The opposite of inclusive. If the busses were less inclusive they would be safer (from my experience) some mofos shouldn't be allowed or priced out

>>511042730
Alleys*?
I can't into spelling